What really happened in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, and what can we learn from investigating the events of that historic period? In reviewing the reality of what actually happened thirty years ago, when the Berlin Wall was brought down, in contrast to the official narrative put forward by the neoliberals and geopoliticans, Helga Zepp LaRouche makes a passionate case for why this time will be different. The chance for world historic change exists briefly, but this time, she says, the opportunity is bigger. In contrast to 1989, when only the forces associated with her husband, Lyndon LaRouche, and the Schiller Institute, had a strategic plan, today there is the Belt-and-Road Initiative, and a growing recognition that a new crash is coming, and that sticking with the Old Paradigm imposed by the British Empire would be deadly.
She presents the decisive issues of 1989 as one who participated in them, and explains how the British Empire survived then, through assassinations, threats, and corruption, including the jailing of her husband. But the New Paradigm which is emerging globally, shaped by the ideas of LaRouche, is increasingly seen as the only viable option today, as the danger of a new crash has increased. Those defending the old order in Europe and the U.S. are increasingly exposed, with the investigations into the origins of Russiagate bringing out more evidence daily.
Now is the time to read the works of Schiller, she said, to become aware of the potential for each human being—including yourself!—to become a beautiful soul, and to use this discovery to become a force in making history, to make sure that humanity does not miss this opportunity.
23 Feb.—With Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dramatic Feb. 22 announcement of agreement between Russia and the United States on joint enforcement of a ceasefire in Syria, it is natural to ask: but, what about Ukraine? There is more than one potential trigger point for a global showdown and world war, and in recent weeks, the United States and NATO have announced plans for a huge build-up of forces in Eastern Europe, keyed off Ukraine as allegedly exemplary of “Russian aggression.”
As Ukraine marks twin anniversaries this month, that “What about…?” question remains wide open. Ukraine, and not its eastern regions alone, could explode in violence at any moment. The night of Feb. 21-22 was the second anniversary of the 2014 coup d’état, when elected President Victor Yanukovych fled Kiev in fear for his life, as crowds dominated by openly fascist armed bands threatened to storm his offices. One year later, on Feb. 11, 2015, all-night negotiations in the Belarusian capital among Putin, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, French Prime Minister Francois Holland and German Chancellor Angela Merkel led to the “Minsk-2” accords, calling a halt to the civil conflict in eastern Ukraine, the Donbass region, in which thousands had died and more than a million became refugees. The Minsk accords, coordinated with “contact group” talks among representatives of the Kiev regime and the eastern Ukraine regions that had rejected the coup, set forth a schedule for a ceasefire, force withdrawals, prisoner exchanges, and a longer-term settlement involving Constitutional changes to give semi-autonomy to the Donbass districts.
The force disengagement happened, but the Constitutional changes, recognition of autonomous status, and the planned subsequent return of control over the Donbass-Russia border to Ukraine, have not. Dr. Gordon M. Hahn of the Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey (California), in an assessment published Feb. 19 under the headline “Who’s More in Violation of Minsk-2—Kiev or Donbass?” (http://gordonhahn.com). He concluded was that “Kiev is significantly more in violation of the agreement than the Donbass rebels and/or Moscow”, with the Ukrainian regime being “in violation of no less than seven articles and nine obligations” it committed to in Minsk-2.
The chaotic post-coup universe
On Feb. 3, Lithuanian banker Aivaras Abromavičius, imported by Poroshenko in Dec. 2014 to serve as Ukraine’s minister of economics, abruptly resigned. He stated, “My team and I have no wish to be a cover for open corruption or puppets,” citing alleged influence-peddling by Ihor Kononenko, an MP and businessman close to Poroshenko. Within a week, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde warned, “I am concerned about Ukraine’s slow progress in improving governance and fighting corruption,” hinting that the release of IMF funds pledged for stabilizing Ukraine might not be forthcoming.
Next, Poroshenko demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Arseni Yatsenyuk, the infamous “Yats” who was handpicked by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland for his job in January 2014. On 16 February, the Supreme Rada (Parliament) condemned the performance of the Yats government, but several minutes
later failed to pass a vote of no-confidence. The sudden exit from the hall, before the second vote, of dozens of MPs, including opposition members and members of Poroshenko’s party, triggered rumors of bribery and dirty deals.
Yats remains PM, but two parties left the ruling coalition the next day. Either he forms a new coalition, or early elections could be called. Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, whose party has risen from barely over 5 per cent of the vote in late-2014 elections to now polling 20+ per cent, and who was one of those exiting the coalition, visited Washington in early February, evidently to curry favor for a comeback bid.
The main issue in Ukraine, however, is not parliamentary scuffles. It is ungovernability, and economic breakdown. A major reason for non-performance of the Minsk-2 accords is that neither Poroshenko nor Yats could secure Parliamentary approval of the Constitutional changes required for Donbass autonomy. Meanwhile, in a country that saw the highest inflation in Europe (30 per cent in 2014, 45 per cent in 2015), people nationwide struggle to survive on wages that barely suffice for their home heating bills. The free trade arrangement with the EU, over which the Euromaidan coup was supposedly staged, has brought no boom for the Ukrainian economy.
The political problems are far deeper than the faction fights of the mid-2000s, when the victors in the 2004 Orange Revolution, Tymoshenko and then-President Victor Yushchenko, had a falling out, and that revolution “ate its own children”. This time, matters are complicated by the role violent neo-Nazi, ideologically fascist radical Ukrainian national groups played from the outset of the “Euromaidan” coup process of November 2013-February 2014. That role was revisited and confirmed this month in French filmmaker Paul Moreira’s documentary “Masks of the Revolution” (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/finally-masks-revolution-maidan-documentary-full-eng-subs/ri12759), which aired on French TV despite protests by Kiev, while the Hollywood nominated a rival documentary, a Kiev puff-piece called “Winter on Fire”, for an Oscar.
Rostislav Ishchenko, an insightful Ukrainian analyst currently exiled in Moscow, wrote 18 February that the country is experiencing not “dual power”, as there was during the Russian revolutions of 1917, but anarchy. The latest example, he said, is the blockade initiated by Right Sector and other viscerally anti-Russian paramilitaries, again Russian long-haul trucks crossing Ukraine to and from Slovakia and Hungary. In retaliation, Russia blocked Ukrainian trucks, forcing them to take circuitous routes to destinations like Kazakhstan, travelling south of the Caspian Sea through Turkey and Iran. This disruption of routine Eurasian trade is of no benefit to Kiev, but the government is powerless to override the radicals.
Fascist-style measures are found not only on Ukraine’s highways. There is another part of Ukraine’s political body politic, which receives little to no attention in the Western press. The Communist Party, which won 13.18 per cent of the vote and 32 seats in Parliament in 2012, was banned last year from running candidates for office, under new laws forbidding “communist symbols”. On Feb. 4 Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine and co-chairman of the Left Opposition bloc, and 18 others released an appeal to UN and EU human rights officials, on the suppression of their fundamental rights and freedoms in Ukraine. The full text of their petition follows.
PETITION: from the All-Ukraine Public Association of Left and Center-left Political Parties and Public Organizations — “The Left Opposition”
to the United Nations and the Council of Europe Commissioners for Human Rights concerning the obstruction of the activities of opposition political parties and public organizations by the Ukrainian government, and need to start large-scale international verification of whether human rights and freedoms are being honored in Ukraine
Editorial note: The document below was sent on 4 February 2016 to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra ‘ad Al Hussein and Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Nils Muizniek, with copies to Ukraine’s President, prime minister, chairman of Parliament, chairman of the Constitutional Court, and parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights. Official copies exist in Russian and in English. The English text below has undergone literary editing for clarity.
After the 2014 “Revolution of Dignity”, the organizers and ideologists of the Euromaidan, together with its active participants, came into power in Ukraine. But instead of the promised European standards of human rights and the rule of law, a totalitarian dictatorship has been established in our country.
This regime is flagrantly trampling our citizens’ right, provided for under international law and the Constitution of Ukraine, to political and public association in political parties and public organizations, including opposition organizations, for the purpose of organizing society on principles of political, ideological, and economic diversity.
The aforementioned rights are violated by means of:
* prohibition of unwanted political parties;
* wrongful interference in the affairs of political parties by government agencies such as the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs;
* obstruction of the activity of parties and public organizations;
* criminal prosecution of opposition political activists;
* information blockade;
* defamation of opposition political parties and public organizations and their activities through the dissemination of false information;
* dissemination of wrong information for purposes of inciting to the physical elimination of opposition activists and shaping public opinion to support the banning of opposition organizations.
We believe that in regard to our activity the government of Ukraine is in violation of: Articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Articles 3, 8, 15, 22, 24, 34, 36 and 68 of the Constitution of Ukraine; and the Law of Ukraine “On Political Parties in Ukraine”.
Today, Ukraine as a state is based on the dangerous principles of an effectively Neo-Nazi ideology, which tolerates no democracy whatsoever. The institutions of state deal with their ideological and political opponents using illegal means.
In order to organize political repressions. the Ukraine government adopted two laws: i) “On the condemnation of the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes in Ukraine and the prohibition of propaganda of their symbols”; and ii) “On the legal status and the memory of fighters for Ukrainian independence in the twentieth century”. On the basis of these laws, the authorities have toughened up regulations and job instructions for government ministries and agencies.
Let us make you aware of following facts:
1) The government of Ukraine initiated a criminal case to discredit communist ideology and to ban the Communist Party of Ukraine. People who profess communist ideology and were not involved in any repressions or crimes of the “totalitarian regime”, are thereby deprived of the possibility of uniting into a political party and participating in the political life of the country, including participating in elections;
2) The Ministry of Justice refuses to register the Official Decision Note of the Extraordinary XXIX Congress of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (PSPU), unlawfully interpreting the Charter of the PSPU in a distorted fashion. The Ministry of Justice thereby blocked issuance to the PSPU of a receipt of amendments to its Charter and Program, and thus deprived this political party of the possibility of full-fledged participation in the political life of Ukraine, including participation in elections;
3) The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine illegally refuses to register amendments to the Charter and Program of the Labor Party of Ukraine (Marxist-Leninist), and thus obstructs its activity and violates the rights of party members.
Moreover, Mr. Alexander V. Bondarchuk, the leader of the Labor Party of Ukraine and editor-in-chief of the newspaper Rabochy klass (Working Class) was arrested on the basis of accusations made by a pro-regime political opponent; he was held without grounds for 10 months at a pre-trial detention center, and continues to be the target of a cynical, politically motivated court case;
4) The activity of the Russian-Ukrainian Union Party is obstructed by the regime’s connivance in a “raider”-style takeover attempt against it and artificially drawn-out court proceedings;
5) Mr. Anatoliy A. Mayevsky, editor-in-chief of the newspaper Raboche-krestyanskaya Pravda (Workers’ and Peasants’ Truth), chairman of Central Bureau of All-Union Communist Party-Bolsheviks (ACPB) for Ukraine, Moldova and Transdniestria, and Secretary of the ACPB, was falsely accused and imprisoned for more than one year, before receiving three years probation;
6) From April 2014 until the present time, the Аll-Ukraine Women’s Public Organization “Gift of Life” has been subjected to criminal prosecution on trumped-up charges of supporting separatists and terrorists (for no other reason than the intention to carry out human rights work). The bank account of this organization was frozen and a campaign conducted to discredit the organization and its leader, Dr. Natalia M. Vitrenko.
7) The government of Ukraine illegally interferes in the affairs of the canonical Orthodox Church and abets the seizure of Orthodox churches by armed gangs and schismatics.
The law enforcement agencies of Ukraine and the neo-Nazi groups of armed fighters they patronize act in concert to obstruct peaceful opposition political gatherings and activities. Here several instances:
* On May 2, 2014, forty-six members of anti-fascist groups were brutally burned and killed during an action at Kulikovo Field in the City of Odessa;
* On May 9, 2014, a peaceful demonstration in the City of Mariupol in the Donetsk region was fired on;
* On September 1, 2015, in the City of Kharkov, armed bands physically prevented the Progressive Socialist Party from holding a peaceful rally under the slogan, “Peace and love for children, not war and hatred”;
* On January 29, 2016, in the City of Kiev, members of the volunteer Azov Battalion forcibly disrupted a conference of the Public Movement “Ukrainian Choice”, breaking into the premises and in effect starting a session of mob justice. The armed fighters’ action, which grossly violated the rights and freedoms of the conference participants and flouted the presumption of innocence, was overtly supported by Mr. Z. Shkiryak, advisor to the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Acts of vigilante justice and physical obstruction of the activity of oppositional political parties and public organizations, threats (including of physical violence), political murders and driving people to suicide (the cases of Mrs. V. Semenyuk-Samsonenko, Mr. O. Kalashnikov, the Priest Roman, A. Peklushenko, Mr. Walter, О. Buzina, and the editor of newspaper Khochu v SSSR [I Want to Go Back to the Soviet Union] Mr. S. Dolgov), are all being committed in Ukraine. The perpetrators are gangs of right-wing radicals under slogans such as “Ukraine above all”, “Ukraine for the Ukrainians”, “Glory to the nation—Death to the enemies”, “Knife the Muscovites, hang the Communists!”, “Bandera will come and bring order”. All of this is happening with the full legal, information and political support provided of the Ukrainian government.
According to information at our disposal, about 4,000 people are being held in Ukrainian prisons because of their political opinions, while 2.6 million citizens have been forced to abandon their homes, become refugees, and have left Ukraine, including some because of their political convictions.
We, the leaders of the political parties and public organizations, united in the Left Opposition, DECLARE:
The representation of our country by the Ukrainian government as being democratic and as respecting and defending the human rights and freedoms guaranteed by above-mentioned norms of international law and by the Constitution of Ukraine, does not correspond to reality. In fact, a totalitarian state is being built in Ukraine, with all the attributes of a neo-Nazi dictatorship. In is impossible, in such a political environment and using such methods of fighting against the opposition and intimidating the people, to build a democratic state, to ensure compliance with human rights and freedoms in Ukraine, and to conduct democratic elections.
We ask you to take this Petition under consideration and to organize a large-scale verification of compliance with to human rights and freedoms in Ukraine.
Natalia Vitrenko, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine
Victor Silenko, Kiev Rus Party
Alexander Bondarchuk, Labor Party of Ukraine (Marxist-Leninist)
Alexander Luzan, Slavic Party of Ukraine
Vladimir Marchenko, All-Ukrainian Labor Organization “Ukrainian Confederation of Labor”
Lyudmila Drobyazina, Public Organization “Assembly of Orthodox Women of Ukraine”
Irina Kravchuk, All-Ukrainian Public Organization “Eurasian People’s Union”
Tatyana Ploshkina, All-Ukrainian Women’s Public Organization “Gift of Life”
Nikolai Lavrinenko, Slavic Committee of Ukraine
Valentin Lukiyanik, Public Organization “Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods of Ukraine”
Yelena Mazur, All-Ukrainian Public Organization “For the Union of Belarus and Russia” (ZUBR)
Gennadiy Selivanov, Public Organization “Union of Soviet Officers of Ukraine”
Evgeniy Pavlov, All-Ukrainian Union of Workers
Amar Al-Anni, Public Organization “St. Sergius of Radonezh Orthodox Brotherhood”
Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the founder of the Schiller Institute and the Chairman of the German Civil Rights Movement Solidarity political party (BüSo)
The escalating refugee crisis has split Germany into two fundamentally opposed camps: the majority (as of now) of people who respond as good Samaritans to the distress of the refugees, and actively help in one way or another to alleviate some of this distress. With her statement “We will do it!”, Chancellor Merkel expressed the attitude of that majority.
Then there’s the other side, which ranges from Christian Social Union head Horst Seehofer, to Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, to Schäble’s son-in-law Thomas Strobl, Bavarian Finance Minister Markus Söder, the Alternative for Germany Party, and the xenophobic Pegida movement. Their common denominator is stoking the fear and resentment of the population and offering proposed “solutions” which ultimately violate human rights, in some cases marked by open racism, all of which share one thing—total inadequacy for solving the problem.
The political climate between these two camps has now become so hot, aggravated by an objective overload on the municipalities and inadequate housing capacities for the refugees, that the situation in Germany is about to become uncontrollable. If it should come to that, this crisis would have fateful consequences for all of Europe, due to the relative weight of Germany on the continent.
A Syrian woman and her children, among the lucky ones who made it to the Greek island of Lesbos after crossing the Aegean Sea from Turkey (UNCHR)
This is not a crisis whose end is in sight; on the contrary, on an almost daily basis, streams of incriminating pictures come out of bodies of refugees washed up on the Mediterranean coast, among them babies and small children, a mirror-image of the failed EU policy, which has ignored the looming catastrophe for years, and left primarily Greece and Italy to handle it alone. Officially, 2,600 people have drowned this year alone; the number of unreported cases must be much higher. But it’s not only desperate Syrians who are risking their lives in the attempt to escape death; millions of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and many more African countries, or in refugee camps in countries such as in Turkey, see no future, and set off for Europe.
There are some, who, like Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri, are demanding that deportation prisons (or jails) be established in the so-called hotspots of Italy and Greece, in order to prevent the refugees from entering EU territory through its external borders. Others want to deploy Frontex-ships against the traffickers—which obviously puts the lives of the refugees in great danger.
Striking the same tone are proposals like those of Markus Söder to change the Constitution in order to restrict the right of asylum to specific quotas—a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. Human rights organizations also consider the new asylum proposals by Interior Minister de Maizière to be unconstitutional and totally inappropriate for solving the problems in managing the refugee crisis, not least because they increase the panic among the refugees at having Europe’s gates shut on them.
It is dawning on some that this refugee migration is in reality a mass migration comparable to the great migrations of late antiquity. They are the result of a decades-long failed policy of the geopolitical wars of Bush and Obama in Southwest Asia, which were based on lies; and of the conditionalities policy of the IMF, which suppressed economic development and created the breeding ground for terrorism through the resulting poverty.
The idea that you could remedy this situation which is totally coming apart at the seams, by building a new Limes Wall around Europe, and declaring the Near East and Africa terra incognita,—as is proposed in the 1991 essay by Jean-Christophe Rufin “The Empire and the new Barbarians: North-South Rupture,”—is absurd, and ultimately reflects the moral and political bankruptcy of its advocates. Should pictures of terrorized refugee children shown between NATO barbed wire and tear gas, who are the victims of a failed policy,—should shot refugees and drowned bodies become the “new normal?”
With reference to the xenophobic Pegida demonstrations and the burning refugee shelters, Die Welt wrote that Mrs. Merkel could only survive the next two years if she gets the refugee problem under control. A fair assessment, and even more so in view of the fact that the trans-Atlantic financial system can implode at any minute, and the gigantic derivatives bubble evaporate in a super-crash, as, among other things, the Glencore crisis calls to mind. It should be clear to any thinking human being that the chaos which would result from such a crash, would destroy the foundations of society, and scuttle all calculations on the refugee question.
A New Paradigm
There is a way out—but it requires a totally new paradigm and a totally new way of thinking. Only if the military operation by Russia, and now China, in Syria, and possibly Iraq, is followed by a comprehensive economic reconstruction program, that actually develops the Southwest Asian region which has been bombed back into the Stone Age, and permits people there to have the future which they don’t have now, can the mass migration be stopped. The same goes for Africa.
Development Plans for the Middle East and Africa on the Table in 1991
Prior to the escalating wars and terrorist onslaught in the region, these projects proposed by Lyndon LaRouche were all under discussion
Already in 2012, the Schiller Institute worked out an extensive development program for Southern Europe, the Mediterranean region, Southwest Asia and Africa, which was based on earlier development plans. In 2014, the Schiller Institute’s associates at the news magazine EIR—this magazine—published the report “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” which includes those development plans.
The basic idea is to develop the whole of Southwest Asia with a comprehensive development program; the greening of the deserts with desalination of large amounts of sea water, and other modern methods of fresh water production, such as ionization of the moisture in the atmosphere, together with the building of integrated infrastructure projects, industry and agriculture, and new cities will totally change the characteristics of the region.
Only if poverty is eliminated, and, most important, young people, and especially young men, are given a real perspective for the future, can the problem of terrorism be overcome. Naturally, the known sources of funding this terrorism—for example, through drug cultivation in Afhganistan and certain Wahhabi “charity” organizations, must be cut off.
It is clear that such a change in paradigm is only feasible if all the major neighbors of the region—Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, and the European nations—and hopefully also the United States—work together. To stop mass migration from Southwest Asia and Africa, geopolitics must be shelved, and replaced by the common aims of mankind. Among these aims is victory over terrorism, which threatens Europe, as well as Russia, China, India, and the United States,—and the need to preventing the refugee crisis from shattering the foundations of European society.
In addition to adopting a development perspective, the problem of the integration of those refugees already in Europe must immediately be addressed. In Germany today there are about 45 million employable persons; in 2050 that figure will only be 29 million, and in many other countries the situation is similar. The integration of such a new workforce is therefore in our own fundamental interest.
Why should the young employable refugees not be involved immediately in the construction of a half million units of subsidized housing? The financing could be undertaken by the Reconstruction Finance Bank (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) just as it financed the German economic miracle after the Second World War, and it would have the same economic effect. The mere announcement of this project, in combination with an extension of the New Silk Road toward Southwest Asia and Africa, would eradicate the current despair and anxiety for the future, and give way to a spirit of optimism.
The mean-spirited skeptics should ask themselves the question: do they really believe that the current policy toward the Middle East and Africa can actually go on forever? On the positive side: With China’s policy of the New Silk Road and President Xi Jinping’s offer of “win-win” cooperation for building the New Silk Road, we already have the framework in place for the perspective outlined here. The fact that the report “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” has just been published in Chinese translation, and at the book launch received the enthusiastic support of ten representatives of leading Chinese economic institutes, demonstrates that this perspective presents a realistic opportunity, for which cooperation from Russia, China, and India can be relied upon, to resolve the refugee crisis in a totally new way. That opportunity need only be seized.
. PEGIDA stands for Patriotic European Against the Islamicization of the Occident. The movement was founded in Dresden, Germany and has been holding anti-Islam demonstrations since October 2014.
. Frontex is the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. It was established in October 2004.
In this week’s webcast, Schiller Institute leader Helga Zepp LaRouche reviewed the latest financial swindle coming from the Black Rock group as an example of the desperate efforts to buy some time to defend a crashing system. While its promoters refer to this plan as a “regime change” in financial policy, it is just another effort to flood the system with “helicopter money”, to protect $1.5 quadrillion of worthless assets. This was exposed in the 1990s by Lyndon LaRouche, who developed the pedagogy of his “Triple Curve” to show why this approach will destroy the physical economy, and will lead to chaos.
This is the backdrop to the escalated destabilization of China, which shows the British hand, and that of their allies such as Bolton and Pompeo, in a vain effort to prevent the rise of China, and its BRI policy. While Trump wants a deal with China, his opponents, both within and outside his administration, are putting the world on a dangerous course.
One significant, positive development she identified is the coverage, in the Guardian, the Washington Post, and the Financial Times, of the Dark Age ideology behind eco-fascism, and how it is being used to create a green bonanza for otherwise bankrupt financiers.
These developments are part of an incredible process, which shows that the system is not working, and opens the prospect that growing numbers of people can be brought to see that the solution depends on the proliferation of scientific ideas and great culture — and that is the basis of optimism.
HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast today with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s Aug. 21, 2019.
And we’re in the midst of an extremely turbulent world situation, with things flying all over the place, events taking place, some surprising developments. And Helga, I guess the place to start is the financial situation, where there are some completely crazy proposals being floated which show that the crash is coming. So why don’t you start there?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the next financial crash is coming with absolute certainty. It’s coming on like a big tsunami. The only question which is not yet decided is will it be this year, which could very well happen, or will the measures proposed by the central banks and the G7 governments, will that be sufficient to stop a blowout this year and bring it into the next year — but for sure, before the Presidential election in the United States 2020.
So, the signs a many-fold, but I think one of the more telling proposals, is that now the question of “helicopter money” has come out quite openly, and this in the form of a paper proposed by BlackRock. This is the largest private equity firm in the world, and they’re involved in all kinds of things. They have produced this paper for the Jackson Hole meeting which takes place at the end of this week [Aug. 22-24]. This is the meeting where all the top bankers and financial government officials of the world, once a year gather.
What this proposal is, they call it a paper for “regime change,” to abandon the so-called “independence” of the central banks. Now, if you think this is sounding like what we say, that we should go back to a national banking system, that’s quite the opposite, because what they propose is to sort of merge the governments and the central banks, and go to what they call “direct investment” or direct delivery of money to anybody who needs it. And when they talk about meeting the inflation requirements, they don’t mean physical goods, or anything like that, but what they’re talking about is to keep the altogether, estimated $1.5 quadrillion derivative bubble going.
And if people remember the famous “Triple Curve” of Lyndon LaRouche, a pedagogical device which he developed in 1995, for a conference in Rome, in the Vatican, where he in a very astounding but simple and convincing way, showed how the financial and the monetary aggregates are moving in a hyperbolic direction upwards to a certain point, while the real economy is moving downwards, and going down. And we have now reached the point where any kind of liquidity pumping you can imagine is not going to be sufficient to maintain this bubble. So, we are heading toward the storm of storms, and there is absolutely not going to be any solution, except those which were proposed by Lyndon LaRouche: Glass-Steagall; nationalize the central bank, making it a National Bank in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton or for that matter the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau in the postwar reconstruction plan in Germany; and then establish a new, international credit system, a New Bretton Woods system; and then go into a crash program for fusion, for space research cooperation, and cooperate with China on the New Silk Road.
Unless this package is being put on the table, there is nothing going to stop this crisis. But I’m optimistic that things are actually moving in a direction that the implementation of the LaRouche solution is not impossible at all.
SCHLANGER: Helga, just to make it clear to our viewers: The proposal that’s being made is not to deal with the debt situation in any sane way, but to allow the debt to continue to be carried by creating more debt, by pumping more money in. Is that what the BlackRock proposal ultimately boils down to?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. They’re doing already everything you can imagine. Since 2008, they’re doing quantitative easing, pumping money; then they went to zero interest rates, now they’re going into negative interest rates, and not only for the larger accounts, but there is now a move to even go to negative interest rates for savings and loans banks, and that is pure, simple stealing out of the pocket of the so-called small people. If you have any savings for your pension, they’re just going to take that, step by step, away. So even the Bavarian Minister President Söder is now proposing legislation prohibiting negative interest rates for accounts which are below EU100,000. So, he obviously knows this is an issue where the population really gets completely mad, because it directly affects them in the most direct way.
So I think that the central banks have lost all ability to actually intervene, because they have used up all the instruments, they have all not worked, and this is why we are pushing the LaRouche solution, as the only way to solve this problem.
SCHLANGER: And while they’re trying to deal with this, what we’re seeing is a worsening of the situation. We’ve talked before on this webcast about Deutsche Bank. Now there’s new evidence that Commerzbank is following in the same path.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, Commerzbank, they are talking about closing 400 of their 1,000 branches, laying 9,500 employees, and their stock has dropped in the last several months, from EU24 to around EU6. So this is really another case, just like Deutsche Bank, where you see the absolute inability of the present liberal system to solve these problems, and Commerzbank is half-owned by the state, so this is also a sign of the times. And these are not the only banks are in this condition: This is just the thing which is out in the news in Germany, but that is the condition of more or less the entire Western banking system.
SCHLANGER: Another example of failing to learn the lessons is Argentina, where the present government of Macri followed the IMF policies — austerity, bailouts; and they were just completely crushed in the primary elections, and then they come out and announce they’re going to continue doing the same thing. This could be a trigger for the crash, couldn’t it?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Because this is highly contagious. I think the inflation, the collapse of production, all of this the result of the Macri policy, is throwing a bond crisis in Argentina on the table, and that could go to any emerging country — Turkey, Brazil, it would even take larger countries. So, it’s really one more element of this pending blowout.
SCHLANGER: Partly what we’re seeing also as this financial crisis is coming down the pike, is an escalation of destabilization, largely run by the same people who created the financial crisis, the City of London and others. The situation in China, as we covered it last week, has continued to worsen, with other aspects of encirclement. Where does that stand now?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think there is an enormous amount of black propaganda, transmitted by the media in Europe and in the United States, who all claim that the demonstrations in Hong Kong are all so peaceful, and people are so freedom loving and so forth. But this is really — I’m not saying there are not some local issues; if you have a liberal society, which Hong Kong was under the British governorship for many decades, it is quite natural that you would have such a reaction. But this was far from being peaceful: You had these acts of violence, which were documented in videos, police stations being attacked, the airport occupied, the local parliament being violently attacked, so this is not that peaceful at all. And that this is also showing some British manipulation, which the Chinese media have published in the meantime, quite a bit, that all of this goes back to the British hand, the Opium Wars: The fact that Hong Kong at all became British, is the result of the Opium Wars!
Now, in that light, this is really absolutely scandalous, that two students went to the British Parliament and were given the floor, to demand the reinstitution of the Treaty of Nanjing and the Treaty of Tientsin. These were the infamous British-imposed treaties after the Opium War, which made Hong Kong a British Crown Colony and which allowed the sale of opium in China. So if you have students demanding the reincarnation of these legislations, if that’s not giving the show away, I don’t know what is.
And it’s quite interesting that there was an article in the American paper The Hill, which points to the fact that everybody in the United States supports these “freedom-loving people” — Congress, Lindsey Graham, Nancy Pelosi, Bolton — but that one voice is missing in the chorus, and that is the voice of Donald Trump.
So, I think this is important, because you have otherwise an enormous effort, and unfortunately, Trump seems not to be in control of all of what is happening in the name of the U.S. administration around the world, but you have a complete escalation against China. The effort to contain the rise of China, with many operation, Taiwan being one of them. There was just the sale of $2.2 billion worth of military equipment to Taiwan. The Taiwan government offered asylum to the protesters from Hong Kong, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry basically said Hong Kong and Taiwan touch the “core interests” of China, and therefore there will be absolutely no capitulation on the side of mainland China on these two points. But then, you also have the orchestration of the so-called Uighur in Xinjiang; then you have the Huawei case. Pompeo is continuing, even so Trump obviously wants to get the deal with China, for sure, before next year’s election, but Pompeo is making bellicose statements despite that.
So you have an atmosphere of, really, very, very negative — I forgot to mention the South China Sea — so I think from the standpoint of China, which has tried to change the policy in the direction of a New Paradigm, new international relations — they are being bombarded right now with a quite significant assault. And this is very dangerous, because there is no solution to the present world crisis without China. And that’s a fact. So, we have to see, but I think the record of who is doing this geopolitical manipulation has to be published, and that hopefully will help to stop it.
SCHLANGER: And sticking with this strategic picture, the Russians and the Chinese have issued a couple of statements, including warning against the attempt to do regime change against both them. Then, there’s a very significant meeting between President Putin and President Macron which just took place, leading up to the G7 meeting. How do you assess that meeting, Helga?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think that was quite good. It was in preparing the G7 meeting in Biarritz [Aug. 24-26], which Putin is obviously not attending, because Russia was kicked out of the G8. But I think the fact that Putin and Macron met in France at the summer residence of Macron, and Macron basically said that France wants to play a role to reopen ties between the European Union and Russia, because there would be no solution to the world’s problems without Russia, I think this is very positive.
Putin on his part, said some very interesting things: They obviously discussed Syria, Ukraine, Libya, and so forth. But then somebody mentioned the idea of a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. And then Putin said, “Well, this is not an idea which comes from us. This is actually an idea which comes from Charles de Gaulle, who talked about “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals,” but Russia is much larger, it goes to the Pacific; it’s a European civilization and culture, and this idea of a “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok” may sound impossible today, but sometimes the impossible becomes the inevitable very quickly.
And I think that is very interesting, because I think — I don’t know, I didn’t talk to Putin — but I think this is a prophetic foresight, that once you go into an absolute upheaval and a collapse of the present order, then naturally, one resorts to the only concepts available. So I think this idea is quite interesting, and I don’t want to comment on it any further, but it’s for sure, food for thought.
SCHLANGER: Also it’s interesting, Macron and then joined by Trump, emphasized that Russia should be brought back in to make it the G8 again.
Helga the other situation in Europe, that’s really quite explosive, is Italy, where the government was brought down yesterday. What do you think is going to happen there?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, there is a wide discussion that this is the result of “Ursula,” referring to [EU Commission President-elect] Ursula von der Leyen, because she met with Prime Minister Conte and people really think that that idea, to cause a fait accompli where Deputy Prime Minister Salvini was basically forced to force this crisis, anyway, that remains to be seen.
Now, you have a situation: Conte made a speech yesterday in the Senate, where he accused Salvini of not obeying the rules of the EU. Salvini said something more interesting — he actually talked about his vision for Italy for 2050, so that idea of Lyndon LaRouche about the next 30, 40, 50 years, the idea of the Chinese thinking in terms of 2050, it’s good if politicians start to have a little longer vision than the next election for their own post. So he, among other things, talked about infrastructure, and the American Constitution, that the people have a right for the “pursuit of happiness.” So this is quite good.
Where this thing will go is completely open. Conte went to the State President Mattarella [to offer his resignation], and he will now see if another combination can be formed for a government, and if that doesn’t function, there will be new elections. Now, on some other combination, the only way how the Five Star party could form a government with the Democratic Party (PD) would be with the help of Berlusconi’s party Forza Italia which is completely split. So it’s impossible at this point to say how this will turn out — will it be a short-lived new government, with many factors in it? or will it be new elections? We will see.
But it just is one more sign that Europe is in a complete turmoil. We will have the Brexit in October, and the outcome of the elections in Germany also for sure, will change the landscape, because of the rise of the AfD which is expected in the new local elections. So Europe is in a turmoil and it definitely would need completely different unifying principle that that of cooperating with the New Silk Road.
SCHLANGER: To shift to the United States, I think it’s impossible to talk about the U.S. situation without talking about the work of the LaRouche organization, and this became clear in two ways: One was a Washington Times attack on Lyndon LaRouche and his organization which came out Aug. 19. And the other was the exposure of “ecofascism” in the Washington Post. What do you make of this, Helga?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, there have been quite a number of attacks on our international movement, which in one sense means we’re doing something well, because if we wouldn’t be doing important things, they wouldn’t find it necessary to attack us. So there was a one-hour slander on the Swedish radio; then earlier a London Times article; and now in the Washington Times, complaining that despite the fact that my husband has died, that we are still moving. And I think that is a very good sign.
Now, the exposure of “ecofascism,” is really very interesting, because for a very long time, we were practically the only ones who went into the historical roots of where all this is coming from, who is financing it, and that is now coming out, and I think it’s very useful. There was an article in the Guardian and then in a different form in the Washington Post, and what these articles basically admit is that the recent mass shootings in the United States, really go back to the absolute despair and pessimistic world outlook of the ecological movement, by basically saying that if the world is so overpopulated and polluted, then killing people is the only thing one can resort to.
Now, that is quite an admission. And then, some of these articles, go into quite some length of the eugenics movement of the ’20s and ’30s, which we have documented in large part; the fact that out of the eugenics movement, which obviously was the basis in connection with the race policy of the National Socialists, that was obviously discredited with the collapse of the Nazi government; and then Julian Huxley basically, in his position as head of UNESCO in 1946 said it quite openly: He said, now this eugenics is discredited for many years, so we have to basically rename it, conservation movement, protection of nature. So that is all mentioned, and also the role of something called “Federation for American Immigration Reform” (FAIR), whose founder is a guy called John Tanton — whom we attacked already, I would say 30, 40 years ago, because he was part of the so-called Paddock Plan of ’70s, which was the idea to halve the population of Mexico. So this is really coming out very, very openly, but basically making the connection, even saying “ecofascism” — that already is a major important characterization, because that is what it is; then these historical ties are also covered, people should really look at our documentation, because we have published a lot of this over the years.
SCHLANGER: People can go to our website, there’s a lot of material that we’ve put out, developing in depth this whole question of where this ecological fascism comes from; and that this in fact is what’s behind the Green New Deal, the FridaysForFuture. You have this publicity stunt now with Greta Thunberg on a millionaire’s yacht coming over to the United States. But this is being exposed: In fact, Helga, you brought up the craziness of the woman who founded the Extinction Rebellion. It’s hard to believe that she’s openly calling for use of psychotropic mushrooms to discover how to save the planet. This is probably some of the reason people are publishing this, because it’s so hard to believe.
But it does bring up the bigger question, which is science versus fascist ideology. And we see this on many fronts, but I think it’s important for you to lay out for people why this is the real fight.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, before I say something to that, I should mention that there is an amazing article in The Sunday Times of London on Aug. 18, illustrating another aspect of Greta Thunberg, basically saying that this is designed to cause the biggest bonanza for the financiers — that coming from The Times, I find quite interesting. And they basically say, there is one narrative, that Greta, the teenager, was sitting for a year in front of the Swedish parliament and all of this was innocently triggering this whole change.
But then, they actually reveal quite a different story, namely, that this guy Ingmar Rentzhog, who is her manager, so to speak, was actually trained by Al Gore, that he is connected to the top think-tank in Sweden, Global Challenge, which in turn, is both connected to a former Swedish minister who is absolutely identical with the Swedish oil and energy industry, and that they’re going to make the biggest bonanza ever by getting everybody to go into green financing. Now, that is really, absolutely the case, and I think the real narrative of Greta Thunberg — she may not even know all of this; maybe she does, may she doesn’t — but this really shows that this poor girl is completely instrumentalized. And that the idea to go now for green financing, is the last effort to prevent, or postpone the collapse of the financial system by causing a straw fire, by causing a last phase boom. But obviously, this would completely destroy the real economy, and therefore it’s very good that these stories are now coming out, because maybe there is a return to reason in time, before disaster is complete.
SCHLANGER: And as you pointed out in a discussion with our colleagues yesterday, this makes the issue very clear, real science versus fascist ideology.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. What this article which I just mentioned also says, it shows the Club of Rome, they had put out recently an emergency action plan, and that the so-called “talking points” of Greta are exactly identical according to these talking points of the Club of Rome! This is really incredible, because the Club of Rome are not scientists, they are quacks, they are fraudsters, who in 1972 had computers with the end result of what they wanted to say, and then programmed the computer in such a way it would produce this result: namely that the limits to growth had been reach, that the Earth is finite, and then the whole ecology movement grew out of this wrong conception.
So, I think it’s not decided at all, because there is on the other side, now, a growing number of scientists, in 20 countries already, who have basically picked up on the petition of the Italian scientists, who some weeks ago denied the idea that there is any connection between CO2 emission and climate change, and therefore, they called on the Italian government not to go into these completely costly, and completely ineffective measures. If you want to change the climate, well, first of all, man can probably not do that at all, because the causes of climate change are not the result of his activities, and you cannot influence the millennia old cycles of the Solar System in the Milky Way, the galaxy, the processes on the Sun, the cosmic radiation resulting out of all of this.
So, it is very important that there is now a growing movement of scientists who basically challenge manmade climate change, and they are appealing to the governments, especially in Europe — maybe Trump, who has in any case left the Paris Climate Accord — to reestablish a scientific debate on this issue. And I think people should spread this idea, and contact scientists and get them to get in touch with these scientists. Once we have this resolution — and the Italian one is known — but I think the international one is being circulated right now for many signatures, and it’s supposed to come out in a few weeks. But help to support this campaign, if you agree, that we should really not go into a New Dark Age, which would really extinguish civilization, but not the way the Extinction Rebellion people are talking about it, but because of a lack of production, food, water, and all of these things.
SCHLANGER: It would seem that the Extinction Rebellion is actually for extinction: They just want it through a New Dark Age, through phony attacks on science.
So, Helga, is there anything else you want to cover?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah: I think we are in an incredible process, where many, many people realize that this system is not working. It’s not working in Europe, it’s not working in the United States. Our colleagues in the United States report a very interesting pattern, that many people don’t want to hear about parties any more, which I find very good, because party politics is really evil, because it has completely degenerated into lobbyism for particular interests. So I think to go for the common interest, the common aims of mankind, the common good of nations is a much better approach. And we will fight to have a return to the scientific ideas of the physical universe, of natural science, of great Classical art, basically the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche which I can only encourage people to study. If you go to the archives, you can read an enormous amount of articles by Lyndon LaRouche, and it will blow your mind, because these are the most profound conceptions which have developed by anybody to the present time. And therefore, I again ask you to join the fight for the exoneration of my husband, and join our effort to, in time, get the European nations and the United States to cooperate with Russia and China, in a New Paradigm. Because if we do not change the present lunacy of geopolitical confrontation, the world can actually end up in catastrophe, because the crisis points are many, triggers could easily develop into larger conflicts: So we have to have a new cooperation between the United States, Russia, China, and India; and we should not give up the European nations that they can be brought back to reason. So join our effort.
SCHLANGER: Helga on behalf of our viewers, thank you for making this situation coherent and understandable. And now it’s up to people to act on it. So, we’ll see you again next week.
Helga Zepp LaRouche opened today’s webcast by discussing “bright spots” in the strategic situation, coming from the diplomacy at the G20 summit and the Trump-Kim DMZ meeting. Yet the potential which is emerging to break from the unipolar world of geopolitics is threatened by the enemy of mankind, the British Empire, which is engaged in military provocations, against Iran and China, but more significantly, through its role in spreading pessimism about the future, through the imposition of anti-human Green ideology.
As the West is destroying itself, Asia is rising, and a key feature of Asia’s emergence is the emphasis on space exploration. China and India are both engaged in lunar projects, and Trump’s intent for the U.S. to be back on the Moon by 2024, defines a potential for broad scientific cooperation. This is the antidote to the pessimism of “limits to growth”, etc., around which the Green movement was launched—human creativity can always open new horizons, she emphasized, as Krafft Ehricke emphasized, with his visionary idea of the “extraterrestrial imperative”, and Lyndon LaRouche demonstrated in his writings.
We can use the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing to bring renewed optimism to people, something which is greatly feared by the neo-liberal imperial networks centered in London.
The extraordinary leak of cables from the British Ambassador in Washington to the Foreign Office in London makes clear that the Brits are still engaged in a broad campaign to destabilize the Trump administration, as they have been since his election. Helga Zepp LaRouche warned that Sir Kim Darroch’s statement that Trump may make another U-turn on Iran means that we must be alert for another False Flag provocation, designed to lead to a U.S. strike against Iran. The seizure of an Iranian tanker by British forces on a false pretense is an example of this kind of dangerous geopolitical game.
The presidential diplomacy at Osaka, is continuing. As a follow-up to the strategically significant Trump-Kim meeting at the DMZ, envoys from the U.S. and South Korea are coming to Europe to report on developments. Other activities include a meeting between Russian and U.S. officials on arms limitation talks; Putin’s visit to Italy; and new trade talks between U.S. and Chinese officials.
This is an extraordinary moment, which was prepared by the life work of Lyndon LaRouche, whose contributions include his prophetic vision for the future. Trump’s July 4 address captured this spirit, especially with his talk of the Moon-Mars mission. For this to be realized, the work of LaRouche must be studied by more people, who can then bring his ideas to those who do not yet know him. The campaign for his exoneration is an essential feature of making this happen.
Because of the disorder in international relations many new formats for discussion and dialogue are developed to figure out what to do about the dangerous world security situation. The Wanshou Dialogue for Global Security was started last year by the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament, which is an organization founded in 1985 and is by far the largest civil society organization in China dedicated to Peace. It has a membership of 25 mass organizations in China and maintains contact with 350 international peace organization and institutes for strategic studies.
The Wanshou Dialogue is organized in coordination with the International Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee whose Minister Song Tao and Vice Minister Wang Yajun were the highest Chinese representatives in the Dialogue. There were 27 International guests and 23 Chinese participants in the Dialogue which had the form a closed round table discussion.
The opportunity to participate in this very prestigious conference about Global Security came out of the blue, as a side effect of the activities of the Swedish Schiller Institute to promote BRI in Sweden. It was a great opportunity to meet and become friends with leaders of top Think Tanks in many important countries. Only a few of them had met or knew of the International Schiller Institute on other occasions.
Ulf Sandmark presents the Schiller Institute’s report, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Landbridge II to Yu Hongjun, Vice-President of the Chinese people´s Association for Peace and Disarmament and Former Vice-Minister of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee
The Schiller Institute expertise was called upon to contribute to the Panel 3 about “Emerging and New Technologies and Global Security.” Among those technologies are ABM, ASAT, UAV, Cyberwarfare and Artificial Intelligence. Here several speakers warned against the militarization of space and the plan from President Trump to unilaterally deploy space weapons. It was an opportunity to bring those technologies that could uplift the dialogue to a level where the Common Aims of Mankind would show the way out of the disastrous global security dilemmas.
Lyndon LaRouche’s Strategic Defense Initiative and the Strategic Defense of Earth were the obvious starting points for this intervention by the Schiller Institute and then also Space Exploration and Fusion Power development that would make it possible for a policy of Global Raw Materials Security. Also, the Chinese Belt & Road Initiative was brought in from the physical economic standpoint of developing a new infrastructure platform as a new international logistics machine. This made it possible to link up the development of the economy as a stabilizer of the Global Security and to bring in the Four Laws of LaRouche as the absolute strategic necessity to be implemented through a Four Powers agreement for a New Bretton Woods.
The Russia-India-China cooperation was brought into the Dialogue by a Russian scholar as the s.c. RIC-format (as in BRICS). Also, at the G20 meeting President Trump had had meetings individually with the other three leaders who also had their special RIC meeting on their own. These developments opened up for launching the Four Power proposal at the Wanshou Dialogue, which is to ask President Trump to join the leaders of the RIC Powers to form a group strong enough to challenge the currently dominating financial power of London and Wall Street which under its leadership of the modern form of the British empire is the force behind the disastrous policy geopolitical wars bringing the world to brink of nuclear war. Finally, the necessity for the immediate global security to bring into the international strategic discussion these strategic proposals by Lyndon LaRouche, made the call for his exoneration appropriate to bring into the 2nd Wanshou Dialogue.
This ten minute presentation was well received. Another participant responded about SDI in a very positive way and asked if the SDI negotiations could move out of the US – Russian format and also bring in other powers. Ulf Sandmark got the opportunity for a very short reply saying that the first step would be to immediately start the process for implementing the SDE, as it it is civilian and can build trust. Secondly the SDI proposal should be studied and updated by all leading powers in the world. Thirdly a fully implementable counterproposal should be proposed to President Trump as an alternative to his proposal for a Space Force.
Sandmark said that SDI was developed by Lyndon LaRouche and further promoted by the Schiller Institute. If we as private institute could develop the SDI proposal, then any other institute, certainly leading national security organizations, would be able to fully develop the concepts necessary to bring forward the SDI as a solution to eliminate the danger of nuclear extinction.
Also, this intervention was received well. The Chinese chairman of the panel half jokingly introduced the need for an “SDF” – a Strategic Defense of Face. He took up the example of a recent video where the face of President Trump had been manipulated and put into a video saying that he was immediately attacking Iran. These types of videos, although false, could if they were spread, trigger a real war, the chairman said. This warning against the new technologies that could be used in this way, had the effect to further familiarize the conference with the concepts of SDI, which then became a reference point in the later discussions.
The 2nd Wanshou Dialogue brought up many other questions and concerns for evaluation among the participants and for sure will continue to be a platform for discussion about Peace and Development also in the future.
Following a 50-minute meeting with the North Korea’s Chairman Kim Jong Un in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that divides the North and South Korea in Panmunjom, President Donald Trump said today that teams from the United States and North Korea would start meetings “over the next two or three weeks” for talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear program. Trump said he was in no rush for a deal. Negotiators will “start a process and we’ll see what happens,” South China Morning Post quoted him.
The two held a short press conference, no questions, at their meeting, with Trump saying “Well, I want to thank you, Chairman. You hear the power of that voice. Nobody has heard that voice before. He doesn’t do news conferences, in case you haven’t heard. And this was a special moment.”
U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun held secret discussions at the DMZ to set up the meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un, media reports said.
“We’re not looking for speed, we’re looking to get it right,” Trump told reporters. “Speed is not the object… We want to see if we can do a really comprehensive, good deal. [But] a lot has already come up.”
“I would like to move away from the past and maintain good relations in the future,” Kim told Trump. Trump said he appreciated Kim’s presence, noting that many positive changes have happened. “The relationship we have developed has been so much,” Trump said. “This could be very a historic moment. I really enjoy being with you,” SCMP reported, which also pointed out that Trump is the first incumbent U.S. President to have visited the North Korean side of the border.
At a joint press conference in Seoul earlier in the day, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said the meeting at the border was crucial for the future of the denuclearization talks.
Speaking at his press conference after the first day of the G20 meetings in Osaka, Japan, President Donald Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and their relationship. “You are going to have to take a look at the words, we had a discussion, we had a great discussion President Putin and myself, I thought it was a tremendous discussion, and he would like to trade with United States and they have great products, rangeland, very rich land and a lot of oil, a of minerals, the things that we like, and I can see trade going on with Russia, we could do fantastically well. We do very little trade with Russia, so I could see positive things happening.”
Trump told Rossiya-24: “He is a nice guy, I think. We’ve had an excellent meeting…. Our two great countries, Russia and the United States, must trade with each other. Yesterday’s meeting was great. He [Putin] is an extraordinary man.”
Speaking at his press conference on Saturday Putin said he and Donald Trump had asked their diplomats to begin talks on the New START nuclear arms control treaty. “As for New START, we have ordered foreign ministries of our respective countries to begin consultations. It is too early to tell whether it will help prolong New START,” Putin told reporters.
Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov told Rossiya-24 TV network on June 28: “The sides declared the readiness to discuss the most burning problems. Will this declared intention be realized? Let us wait and see. I am confident that on the Russian part, namely on the part of President Putin, these declarations of readiness are backed by actual possibilities, actual readiness. But what about the American side? Let us wait and see.”
Peskov said the two leaders “outlined problems of mutual interest. They spoke about Iran, Syria, Ukraine. President Trump asked about the Ukrainian military mariners. They spoke about other regional problems, they spoke about international trade. They also mentioned the necessity to begin expert-level talks on disarmament and strategic stability,” Peskov said, adding that these topics required a comprehensive approach and time to discuss. “The willingness to do it was expressed today. So, let us wait and see what becomes of it.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented: “I would say that the attitude remains the same because all Russian-U.S. [summit] meetings, beginning with Hamburg in 2017, Helsinki in 2018, telephone talks, were all very constructive,” Lavrov said. “The two presidents are committed to developing dialogue and refraining from making the biggest global security issues, which are of interest to the entire world, hostage to some problems within the U.S. elites. I believe this is a very positive fact,” he said.
On the issue of trade between the U.S. and Russia, Lavrov said, “Although it [trade] keeps growing, it lags behind in terms of absolute figures compared to many of our partners and many American partners,” and that the talks also touched upon the necessity to reinvigorate the joint work of the Russian and American business circles.
“Among the international issues they discussed Syria, Ukraine, Iran. Iran [was considered] in the context of the current situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program and what is happening in the Gulf of Oman. The situation is difficult, but both presidents confirmed that they want to find a diplomatic way out of this situation,” he said.
“For the moment, I don’t know how it will be implemented at the working level, what decisions will be made in Washington. But we will definitely strive to ensure that everyone who can somehow influence this situation is working towards a diplomatic solution,” the minister went on.
Meanwhile the invitation for Trump to attend the anniversary of the World War II victory in 2020 will be sent in the coming days, Peskov told reporters. “It is true, as it was said before, Putin invited Trump to [attend] the 75th anniversary of the ending of World War II … next year.” He said, “Trump was positive [about the invitation] and said that he would be expecting an official invitation.” Peskov underlined that the official invitation “will, of course, be sent in the coming days.”
The central theme of Helga Zepp LaRouche’s webcast this week is that the release of the two documentaries on the life and works of Lyndon LaRouche provides essential weapons to defeat the apparatus that brought us within ten minutes of the launch of World War III Thursday. The international mobilization to exonerate LaRouche, she said, is the only way to stop World War III. She repeatedly appealed to viewers to join us in getting the widest possible audience for these two videos.
The decision by President Trump to call off an attack on Iran, ten minutes before it was launched, is an incredible story! The question raised by people all over the world, following his tweet that he called off the strike at the last minute, coming just after the New York Times reported on the “dual power” situation in the U.S. government regarding the decision to escalate cyber warfare against Russia, is, “Just who is making decisions in Washington?
Those British imperial geopolitical networks who were behind the launching of the Get LaRouche Task Force are the same as those behind today’s war drive. The ideas of LaRouche, which shine through the two documentaries released today, were the target of those who prosecuted him. Those ideas can be realized, beginning with the summits between Trump and President Xi, and with President Putin, at the G20 summit next week. As the documentaries demonstrate, the apparatus pushing for war, following its efforts to remove Trump, is the same which unjustly targeted LaRouche. While war was narrowly avoided this time, there will be more incidents which could lead to war, if this apparatus is not brought to justice.
There is no issue more important today, than to bring an understanding of this to the broadest segment of the population worldwide.